I believe that the recent case in California set the precedent for it being considered two murders (the Lacey Peterson murder, Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders).

Interesting perspective punkusmartyrus. Prison is generally not a good life, let's look at this from another angle though. As you mentioned, "natural law" may come into play. In other words, the rights that we have to our life are somewhat forfeit when one commits a crime. You wrote:So in effect, you are saying that the state should not protect the criminal from the friends and family. As such, you seem to suggest that criminal has forfeited (some of) his rights because of his crime (committing and conviction of such). On that you and I agree. As such, however, there should be no reason to prevent the state from putting such a person in a prison. After all, if that crminial has forfeited some of his rights, why shouldn't the state be able to deal with that person as the state sees fit (including prison and/or the death penalty)?

I note that in your post, you suggest that the family should be able to execute the criminal, but what if one of the rare cases arises where the police arrest the wrong person? What if the person convicted is not guilty and later the truth is realized? Would your "natural law" suggestion mean that the family members who killed that person would be protected? What about retribution from the family of the convicted person (whether wrongly convicted or not) on the family of the original victim, leading to a chain of retribution killings/family vendettas?

One of the reasons for trial and imprisonment and the drawn out death penalty is that if evidence is later brought up to clear a convicted felon prior to execution, the state avoids executing an innocent person (as we all know, it is possible to be convicted without ever committing a crime). Another reason is to avoid the situation of escalating killings between families and friends, one side being the relatives of the original victim and the other being the relatives of the first accused or convicted murderer. The people have chosen to allow the state to prosecute crimes because the state can attempt to be impartial, something that family and friends cannot be. As such, the state can cover all the bases. It can find someone guilty and still reserve the right to delay sentencing and execution of the sentence (including the death penalty) pending more information. It can also impose a sentence without triggering a vendetta effect. Is this something you want to give up?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

My God Jeff, you have to stop this....I once again agree with you and congratulate you on a well thought out response.

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

Crime is whatever the state deems "illegal." All land on earth, even Antartica, is claimed by some country and is thus under the law of someone else who wishes to impose thier rule on my body. It's wrong! It's not fair to me, it will not stand. There is nowhere I can go to be free from the possiblity of being arrested wrongfully or not.

The death of everything in the cosmos, short of me, is an acceptable loss for my freedom. Freedom to live w/o the fear of wrongful imprisonment or even execution for unwillingness to conform to the laws of others.

the vendetta effect is apart of the natural law, it is natural selection, and it is well worth the absence of civilized government and all it's personal threats to me.

__________________
<---Click on it

Granted, one cannot avoid law, however one can attempt to choose a nation with laws that parallel one's philosophy. No match is going to be 100% perfect, but that is one of the aspects of the idea of society. If one requires a situation where one agrees with 100% of society's rules, then that person is in effect requiring a society of only one person. Any time two or more people are involved, some disagreement will arise regarding those rules and how to deal with them. At that point, a compromise must be made or chaos will ensue. Thes compromises are what make up the laws of societies around the world. Should one not desire to accept such compromises, then one is effectively asserting a desire for anarchy. If that is your goal, then that is certainly within your right, but you are declaring that you wish to be a member of no state and as such you cannot be surprised that there is nothing to protect your right to be such.
Look at it this way: Let's assume that some piece of land existed somewhere that was not owned by some entity. Further let's assume you are the one who discovers this land, and you claim it. At some level, you'd have to submit that claim and document it to have any chance of protecting it under some set of laws. Perhaps you'd submit it to the United Nations (a pseudo-government). By submitting the claim, you are joining a society of some sort and in effect agreeing to the laws of the society. If you don't submit a claim somewhere, however, "your" land will be subject to invasion and you'd have no protection or ability to stop it (after all, you wouldn't be protected under international laws or any other laws). In order for your land to be part of any society, you'd have to accept laws of that society; including the ones you disagree with.
This is true of every citizen of any nation. In order to be protected by that nation, one must accept laws of that nation including the ones that one disagrees with. In some nations, one can act to attempt to change the laws, in others one cannot do this. This is part of deciding which nation one wishes to be a citizen of.
Perhaps a person desires anarchy; in which no laws exist becuase no state exists. If that is the case, then that person also must accept that neighbors are not forbidden any action including actions that would seriously injure or even kill that person. No property could/would be owned because ownership is part of the laws of a society enforced by a nation.
A neighbor could walk into your house and take or destroy any item within without repercussion (except any that you might personally deal out). If your neighbor is physically larger and stronger than you and better armed, you'd likely be unable to stop your neighbor (natural law). No laws would mean that you wouldn't have to be paid for work that you'd performed. After all, contract enforcement is part of law as is minimum wage. If you have an agreement with an employer to do work for a given wage and the employer refuses to pay, what authority would you turn to in a lawless environment? In such a situation, basically every person would have to provide for themselves in all areas. Each person would have to become a shoemaker, tailor, smith, farmer, carpenter, etc. to assure that the basic essentials would be met, because no laws would mean that at any time, any person could take advantage of any other person without penalty.

You state "It's wrong! It's not fair to me ..." I ask the following: How is it wrong (be clear and well thought out)? Define fair (be clear and objective).

You claim that your personal freedoms don't end where another freedom's begin when you state that "The death of everything in the cosmos, short of me, is an acceptable loss for my freedom." As such, then someone else could also assert that your death is an acceptable loss for their freedom. How would you reconcile those two viewpoints without societal agreements (laws)? Please be clear in your response.

Since you are so fond of natural law, you won't mind sending Lennox Lewis your computers, your physical property and all of your money, right? I mean I doubt that you're likely to beat him in a fight, and as such, natural law would suggest that he could basically take those things if he desired them. Hey, for that matter, I'm a pretty big guy. Perhaps I'll train for a bit and walk to my neighbor's house and take his new car (I wouldn't have to train much, he's much smaller than I am and he's getting kind of old). After that, perhaps I'll start walking into banks and taking the money. As long as I can raise the firepower, why not? I mean with only "natural law", I won't have to worry about police, right?

One of the reasons the American West was called "wild" was that laws didn't really exist and people could indeed use physical prowess to obtain their own desires. This led to many vendettas and bloodbaths. As time went on, people desired the security offered by societies and laws. They wanted to know that if they earned something, they would likely be able to keep it. They wanted to feel safe and comfortable walking down a street. They gave up certain freedoms in exchange for laws to give them that comfort. In short, they exchanged certain freedoms to escape chaos. Consider that chaos is not likely going to be an improvement on the current situation.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

1. "Should one not desire to accept such compromises, then one is effectively asserting a desire for anarchy. If that is your goal, then that is certainly within your right, but you are declaring that you wish to be a member of no state and as such you cannot be surprised that there is nothing to protect your right to be such. " - That is my goal, I'm not surprised.
2. "Look at it this way: Let's assume that some piece of land existed somewhere that was not owned by some entity. Further let's assume you are the one who discovers this land, and you claim it." -I'd never claim it, I don't believe in private property.
3."A neighbor could walk into your house and take or destroy any item within without repercussion (except any that you might personally deal out). If your neighbor is physically larger and stronger than you and better armed, you'd likely be unable to stop your neighbor (natural law). - I know this, and anarchy is still preferable for anyone could still destroy me right now if they truly wished except I get all the negatives of govt. to boot.

4."No laws would mean that you wouldn't have to be paid for work that you'd performed. After all, contract enforcement is part of law as is minimum wage. If you have an agreement with an employer to do work for a given wage and the employer refuses to pay, what authority would you turn to in a lawless environment?" - no one cuz I wouldn't work. I'm anti-work. there's no need to work, ever.
5."In such a situation, basically every person would have to provide for themselves in all areas. Each person would have to become a shoemaker, tailor, smith, farmer, carpenter, etc. to assure that the basic essentials would be met, because no laws would mean that at any time, any person could take advantage of any other person without penalty." - it's doubtful one would not have to learn all of these skillz as they could share, trade, or barter them for services in return and such w/ same-interest individuals of various anarcho-communites.
6."You state "It's wrong! It's not fair to me ..." I ask the following: How is it wrong (be clear and well thought out)? - It's wrong because I say it's wrong, because I say it's not in accordance w/ my limited & ever-expanding viewpoint of the world around me To me there is no inherent right or wrong, only the subjective, only me(*Ethical Egotism.)

7."Define fair (be clear and objective)." -There is no objectivity. I cannot for arguments sake seperate from myself or my subjective perception of experiance to supply you w/ an objective opinion of "fair." However I'll be clear & subjective all the same. Fair to me is synonomous w/ equal or equality, if something is not equal than is it's not fair & vice versa. Government's do not treat me w/ equality, as it is an entity which inherently must take on a superior stance inorder to act out it's functions. Individuals must give up certain liberties and lesser themselves inorder to give a government ultimate power in deciding "criminals" fates. "Fair" is an abstract term invented by man, it's "objectively" in definable.
8."You claim that your personal freedoms don't end where another freedom's begin when you state that "The death of everything in the cosmos, short of me, is an acceptable loss for my freedom." As such, then someone else could also assert that your death is an acceptable loss for their freedom. How would you reconcile those two viewpoints without societal agreements (laws)? Please be clear in your response." -I'm not sure if I understand the question, but in the absence of man-made laws natural law (might makes right) would reign supreme. There is a point when things begin to become contradictive between man-made laws & natural law that I've not entirely mapped out, language itself is prolly to blame.

9."Since you are so fond of natural law, you won't mind sending Lennox Lewis your computers, your physical property and all of your money, right? I mean I doubt that you're likely to beat him in a fight, and as such, natural law would suggest that he could basically take those things if he desired them. Hey, for that matter, I'm a pretty big guy. Perhaps I'll train for a bit and walk to my neighbor's house and take his new car (I wouldn't have to train much, he's much smaller than I am and he's getting kind of old). After that, perhaps I'll start walking into banks and taking the money. As long as I can raise the firepower, why not? I mean with only "natural law", I won't have to worry about police, right?" - Right, you wouldn't have to worry about police, does this not please you? Strength is not only measured in muscle mass. The strong proclaim their own rights by defending them through their own force, the weak must be told thiers, to scavage about w/ whatevers left. "To what property am I entitled to? To every property to which I empower myself."-max stirner
10."In short, they exchanged certain freedoms to escape chaos. Consider that chaos is not likely going to be an improvement on the current situation." - I think the "chaos" is the lesser of 2 evils.



*Ethical Egotism- the view that we always ought to be motivated by self-interest.

__________________
<---Click on it

Oh my God!

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

What God? There ain't no "God." Keep your religious views to yourself.

Prison life is kinda bad...depends. If you just give the money the government spends on the prisoners...they would have no reason to steal again. So just give them community service...or execute...muhahahahahahahaha...

__________________

Some people are like Slinkies.. They're not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

k....holy shit!!!! (better?)

__________________
SEX IS NOT A SIN!
LICK IT UP


GIGGLES

lol.

__________________
<---Click on it

Who says there is anything holy in this universe?
Just kidding.

You do realize that the government and law enforcement officials are FAR more capable of determining who was behind it than you are. Say someone comes into your house and kills your significant other while you're away. How would you handle this when you get back? There's no evidence, other than DNA and possibly a small article of clothing (say they broke through a window and there are some fibers on the glass and floor because their shirt ripped). How the fuck would you find out who did it? Keep in mind that since this is anarchy, there most likely wouldn't be a DNA database. But even if there was, what are you going to do, collect the DNA, somehow get access to the database, and when you do find a match, hunt them down over the whole world and kill them? That's similar to what the law enforcement would do, except they would have more than 1 person looking for him, thus being a lot easier to find him. So now you're fucked, with a corpse of the person you love in your family room, and no repurcussion for whoever caused you and her this much pain and grief.

How would you live without a job? Would you farm your own food? Keep in mind the second you start farming and selling some of your food, that's a job. So, as Jeff said, you would have to be sustaining, either that or somehow have lots of money so you don't need to have a job.

Hell, right now the only reason you can get by without a job is because your girlfriend gets paid by the government!

__________________